"The Necklace of Zi(gZi yi phreng ba) is the revised and extended text of a lecture given by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in 1975 to the annual meeting of young Tibetans in Switzerland. Some years later, The Necklace of Zi was published in Dharamsala in both Tibetan and English, and immediately provoked great interest for a completely new approach to the history and culture of Tibet.

With remarkable authority, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu emphasized the originality and specificity of his people’s culture. Citing ancient texts but also using illuminating examples from his education in Tibet, he refuted the almost universally accepted theory which reduced Tibetan civilisation to a Himalayan appendage of Indian culture. For that prior theory, pre-Buddhist Tibet did not even possess its own form of writing.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu traces back the emergence of his country’s culture nearly 4,000 years, and identifies the original Tibetan system of writing in the ancient mar (smar) alphabet, from which the present cursive characters (dbu med) will have evolved. Besides the analysis of the Tibetan history and language, and a short chronicle of the pre-Buddhist Bon, this text is dealing in a simple but very meaningful way with the crucial topic of the harmonious union of Dharma and politics."

"So important did his Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama consider the contribution Namkhai Norbu has to make to a wider understanding of Tibetan culture, that at their last meeting he gave Namkhai Norbu a golden pen, urging him to write as much as possible."

I thought it was a great book when I read it many years ago.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

I've never met Khenpo Choga, who has a large retreat center and an active group of students, but I have heard that he believes in actively confronting things that he perceives as a threat the Nyingma lineage. Is it worse than the usual Tibetan style of saying negative things about people behind their backs and smiling to their faces? Many Nyingma lamas just ignore that ChNN exists, and that is their way of dealing with his unconventional approach. Personally, I'd rather see meaningful dialogue, but there doesn't seem to be much of a middle way between ignoring and confronting in Tibetan Buddhist culture.

I've never met Khenpo Choga, who has a large retreat center and an active group of students, but I have heard that he believes in actively confronting things that he perceives as a threat the Nyingma lineage. Is it worse than the usual Tibetan style of saying negative things about people behind their backs and smiling to their faces? Many Nyingma lamas just ignore that ChNN exists, and that is their way of dealing with his unconventional approach. Personally, I'd rather see meaningful dialogue, but there doesn't seem to be much of a middle way between ignoring and confronting in Tibetan Buddhist culture.

He practiced many years in retreat with his master that had a lifestyle like Milarepa. Only when he was older he studied at Dzogchen monastery and become a Khenpo. He gave me some threads from the clothes of someone that attained rainbow body as a parting gift, I always wear it in a gau around my neck. He was very supportive to me in many ways. Funny that he is the one that went to argue the origins of Dzogchen with ChNNR, makes the whole story a kind of family story.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

If this is the Khenpo Choga I think he is, he's cousin of the lama who first gave me refuge (and this neat name). But they seem to have very different approaches then. Actually I met the abbot of Dzogchen Monastery in Tibet, Pema Kalsang Rinpoche. A quite impressive presence. He was the one who told if our mind wasn't radically transformed after 20 years of practice, then we were doing it wrong. It fell as a bomb among long time practitioners here.

I often think how wonderful it would be if the idea of a panel discussion could be introduced in Tibetan Buddhism. Just to listen to a civil discussion on how emptiness is presented in the various schools, for example, would be really informative.

Yudron wrote:I often think how wonderful it would be if the idea of a panel discussion could be introduced in Tibetan Buddhism. Just to listen to a civil discussion on how emptiness is presented in the various schools, for example, would be really informative.

Its pretty straight foward actually: the Sakyas and some Nyingmapas follow the view of Madhyamaka promulgated during the early period. Most Kagyus and some Nyingmapas adhere to the gzhan stong view, first elaborated by Dolbupa. Gelugpas and some Nyingmapas adhere to the presentation of emptiness first elaborated by Je Tsongkhapa.

For the most, the lines of discussion and debates between these three approaches to emptiness have remained unchanged since the 15th century.

Yudron wrote:I often think how wonderful it would be if the idea of a panel discussion could be introduced in Tibetan Buddhism. Just to listen to a civil discussion on how emptiness is presented in the various schools, for example, would be really informative.

Its pretty straight foward actually: the Sakyas and some Nyingmapas follow the view of Madhyamaka promulgated during the early period. Most Kagyus and some Nyingmapas adhere to the gzhan stong view, first elaborated by Dolbupa. Gelugpas and some Nyingmapas adhere to the presentation of emptiness first elaborated by Je Tsongkhapa.

For the most, the lines of discussion and debates between these three approaches to emptiness have remained unchanged since the 15th century.

Thanks. That is not the point I am trying to get across. I deeply appreciate the traditional guru-disciple relationship and teaching methods, and these work great for the lineage of realization. As for the doctrinal lineage, I think it would be enhanced by different teaching methods being introduced. We all have different learning styles and mine benefits from a highly interactive environment--this can happen in small group or alone in traditional settings--but all the better for me if lamas were exchanging ideas, in English, too. It also would role model humility and non-sectarianism.

So, as another example, I would love to see a panel discussion with ChNN, a Nyingma Dzogchen-oriented Khenpo, Sam Van Shaik, maybe David Germano, or Alak Zenkar Rinpoche and so forth, on the early history of Dzogchen. A nice friendly discussion based on open minded apolitical look at the existing evidence. There could be maps of Asia on the overhead, and actual comparative theoretical time-lines.

I'm an Aquarian Earth Dog, and I have a personality bias towards people communicating well and working together for the common good.

Yudron wrote:I often think how wonderful it would be if the idea of a panel discussion could be introduced in Tibetan Buddhism. Just to listen to a civil discussion on how emptiness is presented in the various schools, for example, would be really informative.

Its pretty straight foward actually: the Sakyas and some Nyingmapas follow the view of Madhyamaka promulgated during the early period. Most Kagyus and some Nyingmapas adhere to the gzhan stong view, first elaborated by Dolbupa. Gelugpas and some Nyingmapas adhere to the presentation of emptiness first elaborated by Je Tsongkhapa.

For the most, the lines of discussion and debates between these three approaches to emptiness have remained unchanged since the 15th century.

Thanks. That is not the point I am trying to get across. I deeply appreciate the traditional guru-disciple relationship and teaching methods, and these work great for the lineage of realization. As for the doctrinal lineage, I think it would be enhanced by different teaching methods being introduced. We all have different learning styles and mine benefits from a highly interactive environment--this can happen in small group or alone in traditional settings--but all the better for me if lamas were exchanging ideas, in English, too. It also would role model humility and non-sectarianism.

So, as another example, I would love to see a panel discussion with ChNN, a Nyingma Dzogchen-oriented Khenpo, Sam Van Shaik, maybe David Germano, or Alak Zenkar Rinpoche and so forth, on the early history of Dzogchen. A nice friendly discussion based on open minded apolitical look at the existing evidence. There could be maps of Asia on the overhead, and actual comparative theoretical time-lines.

I'm an Aquarian Earth Dog, and I have a personality bias towards people communicating well and working together for the common good.

That panel discussion sounds quite interesting to me to.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

catmoon wrote:Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Dzogchen masters are, when it comes to discussing Dzogchen.

So if it was Dzongsar Khyentse tulku & Khenpo Choga as stated here we see the above statement by Malcom is false as there are disagreements since Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche is a Dzogchen master though he teaches it not publicly but to a few close disciples specially after certain retreats he supervises.

Further, there are disagreements amongst Dzogchen masters on the necessity for ngondro as we all know well. So a second reason why Malcom's pronouncement is wrong on this very basic assumption on Dzogchen. Whether you follow ChNN or Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, you should have faith in their teachings and not otherwise online from others.